Controversies in clinical endodontics: Part 2. Single-appointment vs multiple-appointment treatment.
Endodontics is no stranger to controversies. For most of the first 50 years of the 20th century, a cloud hung over endodontic therapy of any kind, as problems with the focal infection theory were attributed to pulpless teeth causing a wide variety of maladies. Even recently, endodontic treatment has been attacked as being responsible for many chronic and acute illnesses, despite a multitude of information to the contrary. The controversies we discuss here, however, have nothing to do with the decision to treat, where we have no doubt as to the efficacy for therapy, but rather how such treatment should be rendered. Controversies have raged in the past, such as silver points vs gutta-percha as the canal filling material of choice, and to culture or not to culture, to name just two. The subjects discussed in this series of articles are those that have come up much more recently or older topics that have returned as areas for disagreement: (1) lateral canals: filling and significance; (2) single-appointment vs multiple-appointment treatment; (3) filling from the open position; and (4) calculation of working length. This article addresses single-appointment vs multiple-appointment treatment.
Weine
F S
FS
Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Buchanan
S L
SL
D001071:Appointments and Schedules; D006801:Humans; D011215:Practice Management, Dental / Q000458:organization & administration*; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians'; D012390:Root Canal Therapy